hairy Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 .. why? I cant see it would make any difference to any of you if there was a protest or not. Let them get on with it. OK no one really gives a shite apart from friends and family and we all know of injustices in our legal system but just let them get on with it even if it does seem a bit pointless.
Finnegan Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 I cant see it would make any difference to any of you if there was a protest or not. Let them get on with it. OK no one really gives a shite apart from friends and family and we all know of injustices in our legal system but just let them get on with it even if it does seem a bit pointless. We never told them they can't do it, that we'd interfere or that we'd try and stop them in any way. Most of us would probably encourage them to protest for whatever they believe is right. Just a few of us don't really agree, is all.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 It's always dangerous second-guessing public opinion, but however convinced those taking part are that their cause is just, I genuinely don't think that they'll get a lot of public support. They've every right to protest, and I'm sure the lad and his family will appreciate the encouragement they receive, but I suspect that this will be cancelled out by people being rather less kind and saying he deserves everything he gets
Houdini Logic Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 As an aside...Anyone who drinks and drives is a complete moron and deserves anything that comes to them as a result. ...unless it's a lottery win
Guest Bilo Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 No-one should ever drink and drive in my opinion. You could spill your pint.
Ultra Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Congratulations on your new post, BTW. Cheers.. If folk don't see me on here too often (especially next season), they'll know why..
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 No-one should ever drink and drive in my opinion.You could spill your pint. Do you drive? Get out there and see the perfectly sober twats on the road before knocking someone who might have had a couple of pints but is driving perfectly well. This prevailing attitude whereby if someone's been drinking and has an accident they're immediately guilty and an arshole, while someone who's sober and kills someone with their car through bad driving is somehow less guilty, is absolute bollocks. Drivers are as individual as footballers when it comes to both drink and their driving capabilities. Such a pity the instigators and supporters of convenience justice don't instead approve victimising people with marriage/relationship/drugs problems with as much enthusiasm as they do drinkers. Because I'm quite sure such factors are the cause of just as many road accidents. And rank bad driving causes a good many of the rest. How anyone can condone greater punishment for someone involved in an accident having simply consumed alcohol than someone who, although a non-drinker, had actually caused the accident, is ridiculous to me. But then the law, which Lise so vehemently defends, gets ever more ridiculous to me anyway. It seems to be increasingly administered on a social or political basis than on any grounds that relate to justice. Didn't some vicar even announce recently that it is okay to steal from supermarkets or big stores in seemingly complete compliance with current political thinking? Meanwhile I wonder if Tony Blair will ever be made to answer before a court of law for the War in Iraq. Cos the carnage, death and destruction he's effectively left behind in the Middle East couldn't nearly be matched by a whole gang of totally pissed-up drivers running amok on any motorway you care to name for a month.
Guest Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 But then the law, which Lise so vehemently defends, gets ever more ridiculous to me anyway. How many more frigging times? I don't defend it, I explain how it is. As for drink driving, it's wrong. Full stop. Perhaps the re-emergence of this thread might point out why some of us are so much against it.
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 How many more frigging times? I don't defend it, I explain how it is. As for drink driving, it's wrong. Full stop. Perhaps the re-emergence of this thread might point out why some of us are so much against it. And as my own comment in that thread makes plain, it had a direct effect on my own actions - and still does despite comment yesterday which gave a totally different impression. But there is no way there will be rational or disinterested debate about a subject which is so personally close to so many on this forum. I suggest, out of deep respect - my own included - and in the interests of good taste, that the subject is dropped.
Guest Bilo Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Do you drive? Get out there and see the perfectly sober twats on the road before knocking someone who might have had a couple of pints but is driving perfectly well. This prevailing attitude whereby if someone's been drinking and has an accident they're immediately guilty and an arshole, while someone who's sober and kills someone with their car through bad driving is somehow less guilty, is absolute bollocks. Drivers are as individual as footballers when it comes to both drink and their driving capabilities. Such a pity the instigators and supporters of convenience justice don't instead approve victimising people with marriage/relationship/drugs problems with as much enthusiasm as they do drinkers. Because I'm quite sure such factors are the cause of just as many road accidents. And rank bad driving causes a good many of the rest. How anyone can condone greater punishment for someone involved in an accident having simply consumed alcohol than someone who, although a non-drinker, had actually caused the accident, is ridiculous to me. But then the law, which Lise so vehemently defends, gets ever more ridiculous to me anyway. It seems to be increasingly administered on a social or political basis than on any grounds that relate to justice. Didn't some vicar even announce recently that it is okay to steal from supermarkets or big stores in seemingly complete compliance with current political thinking? Meanwhile I wonder if Tony Blair will ever be made to answer before a court of law for the War in Iraq. Cos the carnage, death and destruction he's effectively left behind in the Middle East couldn't nearly be matched by a whole gang of totally pissed-up drivers running amok on any motorway you care to name for a month. Actually agree with your sentiments but check the writing underneath the statement you've responded to. I've been serious enough for one day on the Terrorism thread.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 If there having a protest for a bloke breaking the camera of a traffic warden... Let's make a facebook campaign, Have a protest, Be on Sky TV acting like idiots, For that guy who did the dirty with Horses. I'm sure he was a true Leicester fan.
Hullfox Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 It must be 6 months since I last posted and at that time Thracian was condoning Drink Driving then.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 It must be 6 months since I last posted and at that time Thracian was condoning Drink Driving then. Welcome back
Houdini Logic Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Drivers are as individual as footballers when it comes to both drink and their driving capabilities. Spot on, and as such it is almost impossible for any scientist or government to draw a general line regarding the limits of safe drink driving. So what are the options? Well we could put the a conservative limit on the amount of alcohol we should consume when driving Pros - peoples driving is not affected Cons - they may have to get a lift/taxi Or we could let people decide themselves whether they think they are capable of driving (which is a brilliant idea seeing that alcohol plays with your judgement in the ability to do things) Pros - a percentage of people who can drink 4 pints without being affected no longer have to pay for a taxi Cons - death of drivers and innocent bystanders
Houdini Logic Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 It seems to be increasingly administered on a social or political basis than on any grounds that relate to justice. There is not a better form of justice than that which represents our social views Edit - Shocking grammar
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 There is not a better form of justice than that which represents our social viewsEdit - Shocking grammar Who is "our" because it sure doesn't reflect my social views or the views of countless protesters.
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 It must be 6 months since I last posted and at that time Thracian was condoning Drink Driving then. Does that mean you'll be gone for another six months?
Houdini Logic Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Who is "our" because it sure doesn't reflect my social views or the views of countless protesters. The majority of society
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 The majority of society Looking around at our country today, majorities are so reassuring!.
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Spot on, and as such it is almost impossible for any scientist or government to draw a general line regarding the limits of safe drink driving. So what are the options? Well we could put the a conservative limit on the amount of alcohol we should consume when driving Pros - peoples driving is not affected Cons - they may have to get a lift/taxi Or we could let people decide themselves whether they think they are capable of driving (which is a brilliant idea seeing that alcohol plays with your judgement in the ability to do things) Pros - a percentage of people who can drink 4 pints without being affected no longer have to pay for a taxi Cons - death of drivers and innocent bystanders Or you decide that it's no more fair to victimise people who have a drink than people whose mind is in turmoil because of a broken marriage or because they've just been told they are dying of cancer. And you give the courts power simply to judge each case on its merits and to sentence across a broad spectrum according to the facts. Or are you really suggesting that people whose minds have been seriously disturbed by bad news or who've perhaps woken up with a dose of sciatica should be considered any safer to drive than someone who's downed a couple of pints?
MC Prussian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Who is "our" because it sure doesn't reflect my social views or the views of countless protesters. I'd say you've made that clear from the beginning, so no need to be that repetitious.
Katy Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Tony, sort yourself out. Only total morons with no regard for anyone else but themselves condone driving whilst under the influence.
Houdini Logic Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Or you decide that it's no more fair to victimise people who have a drink than people whose mind is in turmoil because of a broken marriage or because they've just been told they are dying of cancer. And you give the courts power simply to judge each case on its merits and to sentence across a broad spectrum according to the facts. Or are you really suggesting that people whose minds have been seriously disturbed by bad news or who've perhaps woken up with a dose of sciatica should be considered any safer to drive than someone who's downed a couple of pints? Let's break this down - Yes we should decide whether or not people who drink and drink should be treated in the same way as the above mentioned, so to help us do that let's establish solely what we think should happen to people who drink and drive first. I don't think people should drink any more than the (somewhat reserved) recommended limit because the effect of alcohol can differ greatly from person to person. Do you agree or disagree?
Daggers Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Is he really sticking his thumb down its throat in an effort to make it sick? Barbaric sport, fish vomiting.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.